Making JavaFX Development Faster

[Richard Bair]

It is true we've done no testing on other VM's so there cannot be a guarantee in that regard.

On Oct 27, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Tom Schindl <tom.schindl at bestsolution.at> wrote:

> If I remember correctly it had to do with listeners and how to manage
> that they are not leaked but I could be wrong.
> 
> Anyways nobody guarantees that OpenJFX will run on other vendors JVMs,
> am I right? I generally think using JavaFX-Beans on the server side is a
> bad idea.
> 
> Tom
> 
> Am 27.10.12 15:24, schrieb Richard Bair:
>> I cannot imagine what internal stuff Michael could be using or when that was added. 
>> 
>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Tom Schindl <tom.schindl at bestsolution.at> wrote:
>> 
>>> Not only the memory argument is import.
>>> 
>>> What if a customer says i have to run on his j9-jvm?
>>> 
>>> I can be wrong but IIRC Michael told me at JavaOne that the properties
>>> code is even using internal (sun....) stuff so even simply dropping in
>>> the jar to the j9 classpath is doomed to fail.
>>> 
>>> And beside that using FX-Observables and e.g. JPA don't like each other
>>> i guess because of all those lazy list stuff, ... .
>>> 
>>> Tom
>>> 
>>> Am 22.10.12 19:23, schrieb Werner Lehmann:
>>>> Richard,
>>>> 
>>>> On 22.10.2012 17:38, Richard Bair wrote:
>>>>> MyObject obj = new MyObject();
>>>>> obj = BlackMagic.makeObservable(obj);
>>>> 
>>>> I'd like to see the implementation of BlackMagic ;-)  (cglib stuff?)
>>>> 
>>>>> However, the javafx beans package and collections and such are part
>>>>> of the "base" module -- ie: they could be separated from the rest of
>>>>> javafx and safely used on the server side or elsewhere. Why not just
>>>>> use properties and such on the server side definition of classes? Or
>>>>> are those classes being auto-generated and thus not taking observable
>>>>> properties into account?
>>>> 
>>>> Currently I want to avoid requiring customers to install the FX runtime
>>>> serverside. That will be a moot point with JRE 7+. Which does not help
>>>> the 6.x customers, especially if they are on WebLogic which is usually
>>>> tied to a specific major version.
>>>> 
>>>> Another aspect is the footprint regarding memory and bandwidth.
>>>> Obviously a StringProperty requires more bytes than a String. This is
>>>> not an issue (usually) when I want to display a relatively short list of
>>>> beans in the UI. It gets noticeable when the server suddenly needs +X
>>>> megabytes, the instantion of objects needs +Y ms (also affects
>>>> deserialization), and sending them over the network takes +Z ms...
>>>> 
>>>> Werner
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> B e s t S o l u t i o n . a t                        EDV Systemhaus GmbH
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> tom schindl                 geschäftsführer/CEO
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> eduard-bodem-gasse 5-7/1   A-6020 innsbruck     fax      ++43 512 935833
>>> http://www.BestSolution.at                      phone    ++43 512 935834
> 
> 
> -- 
> B e s t S o l u t i o n . a t                        EDV Systemhaus GmbH
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> tom schindl                 geschäftsführer/CEO
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> eduard-bodem-gasse 5-7/1   A-6020 innsbruck     fax      ++43 512 935833
> http://www.BestSolution.at                      phone    ++43 512 935834